/m/politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Kessler even says at the end that he wasn't sure whether to give him any pinocchios, but just decided to anyway because his statement sounds "paradoxical" and he's being "too clever." I'd call that projection.

Ok because I read into it as him being more critical of the White House proclaiming this as a victory when it seems like that they along with Congress "punted" for another 2 months of posturing.

The Israeli people certainly deserve peace, safety and our support towards those ends. They also deserve supporters who are willing to question whether the governments current strategy is actually bringing them any closer to peace and safety.

I'm not Jewish but my father had some Holocaust survivors for friends. Their stories, which included those of a small boy who escaped the Nazis by crawling out from under a pile of his dead relatives and then hid in a forest until American troops finally arrived, a man who suffered bizarre painful medical experiments, two men who were tortured, and a woman who was raped not only for more times but for more days than she could count have made me very sympathetic to Israel. There are, of course, over six million other reasons as well.

I believe we're all willing to stipulate that the Nazis were bad people and refuse to invite them to any dinner parties.

Leaving out that they are the only democracy in the Middle East

Turkey exists.

and our only ally there

Turkey still exists.

Israel deserves our support in the name of justice not only because of what happened before but also to make damned sure that it never, ever happens again.

Israel deserves US support only insofar as support of Israel advances US goals in the region or US positions on international law and cooperation between nations. The crimes of Germans, 75 years past, is not an issue at hand.

It's laughable that we in the US call this the Israel/Palestine conflict, as if there were two equal parties. The Isreali position is so dominant that there is only really one party to the conflict. The only thing that will resolve it is Israel choosing to resolve the conflict themselves, or international pressure finally getting so great that the choice is forced upon them. The Palestinians have always been irrelevant.

This goes to my point earlier about nonviolent resistance. If a true leader emerged who could convince the Palestinians to adopt a serious nonviolent resistance strategy, the international pressure on Israel would ramp up quickly and Israel would be forced to cut a deal in a very short period of time.

IIRC, the first addition to NATO beyond the founding members - with a direct border against the USSR, no less, a fully functioning democracy... and all anyone in the US ever seems to think of regarding Turkey is either the repulsing of the Ottoman invaders into the Balkans 500 years ago or the movie Midnight Express.

This goes to my point earlier about nonviolent resistance. If a true leader emerged who could convince the Palestinians to adopt a serious nonviolent resistance strategy, the international pressure on Israel would ramp up quickly and Israel would be forced to cut a deal in a very short period of time.

The crimes weren't merely committed by Germans, and one is hard-pressed to see why the crimes are not "an issue at hand."

In what sense are the Holocaust and the ancillary atrocities and cowardly passivities (*) of the WWII era not "an issue at hand." That's ridiculous.

(*) Some engaged in by the United States.

No one living bears any guilt for the events of 70 years ago. However, they certainly are a relevant issue in regards to the reasonable fears of the Israelis. Just like the Soviet Terrors and genocide make Polish and Ukranians fearful of being ruled by Russians.

I intentionally avoided Egypt, another democratishy nation in the region that is, yes, an ally of the United States. I did this in an attempt to avoid unhinged tangents about the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt post-Arab Spring.

It's never been both at the same time. It was hardly a democracy when Mubarak was in power. It may already be or eventually become a democracy. That's in question. What's in question as well is whether it will continue to be an ally of the US whether or not it becomes a democracy.

As a historical marker, sure. As a marker of cultural sensitivities, sure. As a justification for the state of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Levant?

No.

As you are wont to do, you've simply regurgitated provocative language -- OMG TEH ETHNIC CLEANSING!!! -- you only apply to white people and Jews. Everything they do is couched in such language, everything bad done by non-white people is somehow the fault of white people and Jews.

You've become a broken record, one that sounds (credit to DMN) suspiciously like the collected compositions of Katrina vanden Heuvel's cabin boy. Snore.

Pedantic much?

I believe we are all willing to stipulate that the Nazis were bad men who shouldn't be invited to cocktail parties. Even if we still have a soft spot for ska.

I guess I wasn't "pedantic" enough, since it didn't seem to register. The crimes of that hideous era were committed by nations and peoples other than merely the Germans.

Hey, Turkey conquered Europe! Absorbed almost all of Russia, took all of the Austrian empire, has all of Italy, and most if not all of Germany. No one can stand up against the mighty juggernaut that is Turkey!

I assume all these purported Palestinians are welcome in Jordan, their historical homeland.

The Golda Meir explanation, "There were no such thing as Palestinians." What's your point?

There were Arabs living in what has become Israel for thousands of years before the establishment of the state of Israel, and I'm sure those Arabs would happily become part of Jordan or Syria if that involved Jordan or Syria getting back all the land that was theirs before the British and French mandates.

I guess I wasn't "pedantic" enough, since it didn't seem to register. The crimes of that hideous era were committed by nations and peoples other than merely the Germans.

The genocide of West African slavery was committed by more powers of the day than America. The genocide of the American Indians was committed by more than just Americans. The genocide of the Jews (and Roma) was committed by more than just the Germans. (There was a long, lovingly established history of killing Jews in Europe long before Hitler came around, of course. Christendom loved them some pogroms.)

In the conversation at hand, with specific regard to the Holocaust, it is generally understood that "Nazis" and "Germans" are acceptable shorthand for "the evils of men that led to Buchenwald."

As you are wont to do, you've simply regurgitated provocative language -- OMG TEH ETHNIC CLEANSING!!! -- you only apply to white people and Jews. Everything they do is couched in such language, everything bad done by non-white people is somehow the fault of white people and Jews.

I've never said anything of the sort, Billy Boy. I'm simply using terms to describe X as X, regardless of who is perpetrating X.

It's interesting to read the opinions of what role the horrific events of the Holocaust 75 years ago (and let's be fair and go further - the simmering lead-up in various forms to that culminating horror that spans centuries) should have on our judgment of Israel, leeway it should perhaps provide them on foreign policy, etc...

...then juxtapose that against say... the AA community's reaction to some of the various voter suppression/'voter verification' efforts of the lasst few cycles.

I'll grant the situations are not directly analogous - mainly because the freed slaves of 150 years ago weren't smart enough to demand Alabama as a homeland, I guess...

But - I'm betting that if I took this:

Israel deserves our support in the name of justice not only because of what happened before but also to make damned sure that it never, ever happens again.

and simply translated the exact same thought process into an objection to say -- voter ID laws, i.e:

Black voters deserves our support in the name of justice not only because of what happened before but also to make damned sure that it never, ever happens again.

We'd have an argument.

My own personal cards on the table?

I, yes, tend to agree that Israel has a unique need for and reason to think it needs an extra level of security that other nations don't.... However, I also think the same applies to Native Americans... African-Americans... etc. I also think it applies to Palestinians who were uprooted so this new nation could be formed.

I assume all these purported Palestinians are welcome in Jordan, their historical homeland.

The Golda Meir explanation, "There were no such thing as Palestinians." What's your point?

Well where's their state in Jordan? The Heebs are supposed to give up what they've fought for, how about the monarchy in Jordan which professes such deep sympathy for the Palestinian plight? That should be a no-brainer, as the freedom-fighters have just as much historic claim to that land and the current rightful owner is openly supportive of their cause. So, you know, draw it up Abdullah, what are you waiting for? People are suffering - SUFFERING - to reclaim their land from you.

Unless, of course...well, I think you know the real reason now don't jou?

There were Arabs living in what has become Israel for thousands of years before the establishment of the state of Israel

And there were Israelis living there before the Arabs, certainly before Muslims, those Johnny-come-lately cultists.

I'm sure those Arabs would happily become part of Jordan or Syria if that involved Jordan or Syria getting back all the land that was theirs before the British and French mandates.

Sounds like someone wants Jordan and Syria to lose another war, perhaps a little more decisively this time. Good thing you bellicose hotheads in comfy chairs don't have the ear of the American natives, who were, after all, here first.

plus, "democracy"
in 1967 they captured the West Bank and Gaza, did the people LIVING THERE ever get the right to vote in Israeli election while those areas were Israeli controlled? NO. However, Jews who settled in those areas still got to vote in Israeli elections
do you see anything amiss with that on democratic grounds?

Israel was created to provide a homeland for a persecuted ethnic group that had suffered genocide at the hands of a pack of violent Nazi lunatics.

personally what I think should have been done was carve out a region of Germany (perhaps one bordering France or Luxembourg) and given that to European Jews- the Germans living there could have been expelled, they had it coming, and besides expelling Germans from regions in Europe in the late 40s was the acceptable thing to do...

No instead, what was done was a million refugees were dropped smack dab in the middle of a population that had nothing to do with the Holocaust...

Sounds like someone wants Jordan and Syria to lose another war, perhaps a little more decisively this time. Good thing you bellicose hotheads in comfy chairs don't have the ear of the American natives, who were, after all, here first.

Sounds like someone's a militant supporter of the Israeli state and has no moral compunction about any crimes that state commits against others. Because, you know, Jerusalem was totally Jewish in 90 AD and ####.

I also think it applies to Palestinians who were uprooted so this new nation could be formed.

Some were uprooted. Some chose to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies, so that when the Jews were pushed into the sea, they could come back and claim the property for themselves.

a million refugees were dropped smack dab in the middle of a population that had nothing to do with the Holocaust

Not quite. Jews have been living in the Palestine Mandate forever, and were moving back there long before the Holocaust. Between 1944 and 1946, there were around 550,000 to 600,000 Jews in that area, many of whom had long been there. After the establishment of Israel, many more moved in.

Meanwhile, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948-1967. At no time did they make any effort to turn those territories over to the Palestinians as a state. If they had, the dynamic might have been far different.

Now, Israel needs to finish disengaging from Gaza and the West Bank, let the Palestinians have a state, tell the Settlers to get out or accept a new landlord, and make it clear that attacks on Israel from the State of Palestine will be responded to, vigorously.

For now, Israel seems incapable of doing so. One can only hope that it will change.

The population that had nothing to do with the Holocaust had no interest in living in peace with the Jews that came to Palestine before the 1940s.

which kind of indicates that bringing in a million more could be a bit problematic dontcha think?

and the Lakota in the 19th century really had no interest in living in peace with "us" IN THEIR LAND
oh they didn't mind the odd trapper who came by every now and then, but when people just started moving in, fencing off land and saying, "mine" that kind of ticked them off, they fought us
and lost, badly
in the end it sucked to be the Lakota who simply had less military power.

The Palestinians are in the same situation that the Lakota were in, and the Apaches, and the Seminoles,
hell Snapper can relate to this- the Palestinians are in the same, if not worse position than Irish Catholics were in, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, Ireland, when the Brits took over and decided that only Protestants (i.e., English Settlers, Scottish settlers) could own land and vote.

Uniquely, some people expect the Palestinians to be the only people in the history of the world to meekly accept that status in their own land, without complaint.

I'm not saying the Pales haven't behaved badly, they have, they've also badly miscalculated, but there are very very very few people on earth who would meekly sit back and let some other people come in, take over, turn you into 2nd class citizens in your own land, and not make some kind of fuss about it.

Uniquely, some people expect the Palestinians to be the only people in the history of the world to meekly accept that status in their won land, without complaint.

I think the opposite is true -- the Palestinians' complaints have been taken far more seriously than almost any other people who have been occupied and/or uprooted. (and I agree with Srul that those claims have merit and that Israel needs to get out of the West Bank and Gaza.)

Meanwhile, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948-1967. At no time did they make any effort to turn those territories over to the Palestinians as a state.

Sure, things could have been different in lots of ways
The original partition plan could have been accepted, the Arabs got the land where they were 50%+, and the Jews got the land where they were 50%+, the Jews agreed, the Arabs said no way in hell, that's on them (and many, not the yahoos running Hamas of course, but many others have realized and admitted that was a mistake)- Hell Lebanon was also specifically gerrymandered as well to create a country with a non-Muslim majority... at the time it seemed to work, but blew up big time in the 70s.

Jordan *could* have taken everyone living the land controlled by Jordan, said everyone was a Jordanian citizen, able to buy/sell land, work etc... but they didn't. So could Egypt- hell with Nasser's pan-Arab philosophy he *SHOULD* have been the one to do it, nope.

So yes, a big reason we have this problem NOW, is because of mistakes made 60+ years ago.

Asking seriously, not snarkily, do you have an opinion of what these percentages are?

No idea. No idea how many fled in terror after Deir Yassin (and other, less well-known massacres); how many self-deported because they refused to live under a Jewish administration; how many left because they thought they would be returning; and how many fled the fighting because that is what large civilian populations do, when they can, if a war is coming.

I think the number who left, expecting to come back and take over, is probably a lot less than the number who just wanted to get out of the way of the fighting.

Jordan *could* have taken everyone living the land controlled by Jordan, said everyone was a Jordanian citizen, able to buy/sell land, work etc... but they didn't. So could Egypt- hell with Nasser's pan-Arab philosophy he *SHOULD* have been the one to do it, nope.

They didn't need to make them citizens of Egypt or Jordan; they could have given the land over and turned it into a Palestinian state.

I am familiar with David's common tactics to wrapping himself in legalistic parsing to avoid honest debate. It's not a new trick for him. No one with a passing familiarity with me would have honestly misread my statement above. David is parsing, because lawyers gotta hide behind something to prevent folks from noticing their lack of intellectual robes.

JSLF was being charitable. Your "wrong" can really only be interpreted the way I did; the only way to interpret it as something else is to assume you're an incompetent writer who can't say what you mean. Of course, that's true, and none of this changes the fact that your understanding of Israel is embarrassingly wrong.

Except no sizeable or influential segment of the Israeli population supports driving Arabs out of the region, or even the West Bank.

You mean except the Settler movement, which runs the entire right wing policy goal setting process, which is strongly supported by the majority government of Israel, from Lieberman through Netenyahu?

See, like this. I apologize for accusing you of getting your information from the Nation; this is so cartoonish and sophomoric that it must come from Mad Magazine or something.

In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women. (The updated VAWA also had more protection for transgendered and male victims of domestic violence, which is sorely needed.)

I think the opposite is true -- the Palestinians' complaints have been taken far more seriously than almost any other people who have been occupied and/or uprooted. (and I agree with Srul that those claims have merit and that Israel needs to get out of the West Bank and Gaza.)

There is also Tibet, though there wasn't much uprooting there in reality.

Everyone in the US agrees on the potential solution (two states, with land swaps loosely based on the 1967 borders), and all the discussion is just a bunch of empty rhetoric about who is more to blame for the last 40 years of failing to make the obvious deal.

It's silly because there is no real disagreement over anything. It's just rhetoric.

I apologize for accusing you of getting your information from the Nation; this is so cartoonish and sophomoric that it must come from Mad Magazine or something.

Oh, Davey. You're adorable when she lets you plug in the electric power.

My primary reading, politically at least, comes from Andrew Sullivan links, The American Conservative, Foreign Policy, the Atlantic, and Jacobin. Also the occasional long form pull from The Browser. Next.

In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women. (The updated VAWA also had more protection for transgendered and male victims of domestic violence, which is sorely needed.)

Right, there is no "war on women," at least not by conservatives. It's not like an expired VAWA makes it legal to beat up women.

The GOP was perfectly willing to extend the existing VAWA. It simply refused to allow Dems to add some absurd new provisions, including one that would subject U.S. citizens to tribal courts.

***

Sully posted a little thing I wrote about my grandfathers ww2 refugee dog a couple days ago. "The Mutts of War, Ctd."

Very nice story about (and picture of) your grandfather. Andrew Sullivan's postscript was more than a little jarring, though. (Sullivan, as Tom Hanks' title character said in Charlie Wilson's War, "could depress a bride on her wedding day.")

See what I mean? This isn't in the same zip code as being right. Lieberman is not at all one of them. That's like saying that because the religious right was anti-communist, and Barry Goldwater was anti-communist, he must have been a member of the religious right. just because you think religious people are crazy and 'settlers' are crazy doesn't mean that they are the same people. Lieberman is a Soviet immigrant. That's an entirely different electoral group in Israel.

Umm... Lieberman actually lives in a West Bank settlement. Like, for real. It's called Nokdim. Go visit and say hello if he's not busy beating up local 12 year-olds.

USA Baby Care's website makes no attempt to hide why the company's clients travel to Southern California from China and Taiwan. It's to give birth to an American baby.

"Congratulations! Arriving in the U.S. means you've already given your child a surefire ticket for winning the race," the site says in Chinese. "We guarantee that each baby can obtain a U.S. passport and related documents."

That passport is just the beginning of a journey that will lead some of the children back to the United States to take advantage of free public schools and low-interest student loans, as the website notes. The whole family may eventually get in on the act, since parents may be able to piggyback on the child's citizenship and apply for a green card when the child turns 21.

USA Baby Care is one of scores, possibly hundreds, of companies operating so-called maternity hotels tucked away in residential neighborhoods in the San Gabriel Valley, Orange County and other Southern California suburbs. Pregnant women from Chinese-speaking countries pay as much as $20,000 to stay in the facilities during the final months of pregnancy, then spend an additional month recuperating and awaiting the new baby's U.S. passport.

Many of the hotels operate in violation of zoning laws, their locations known mainly to neighbors who observe the expectant mothers' frequent comings and goings.

Will certain people like the state of Arizona say no to these anchor babies?

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you’ll get away with it. That’s because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there’s this: According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

As it is, virtually everyone who commits rape on tribal lands get away with it and not face prosecution. A lot of it has to do with the fact that local and state authorities can't or won't commit resources for offenses on tribal lands.

Let me put it this way, Republican senators were able to agree that this legislation was needed, It was only the House Republicans who found issue with it. Joe, what exactly do you find so odious about a group of people trying to protect themselves on their own lands against people who trespass and commit violence against its citizens?

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you’ll get away with it. That’s because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there’s this: According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

This is funny. You post a hysterical editorial and expect us to believe it's factual.

Do you seriously believe that state or federal authorities, when alerted to a murder on tribal land a couple hours away, simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing?

Do you really expect us to believe this hysterical editorial is factual?

Do you seriously believe that state or federal authorities, when alerted to a murder on tribal land a couple hours away, simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing?

In South Dakota, Indians make up 10 percent of the population, but account for 40 percent of the victims of sexual assault. Alaska Natives are 15 percent of that state’s population, but constitute 61 percent of its victims of sexual assault.

The Justice Department did not prosecute 65 percent of the rape cases on Indian reservations in 2011. And though the department said it had mandated extra training for prosecutors and directed each field office to develop its own plan to help reduce violence against women, some advocates for Native American women said they no longer pressed victims to report rapes.

“I feel bad saying that,” said Sarah Deer, a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota and an authority on violent crime on reservations. “But it compounds the trauma if you are willing to stand up and testify and they can’t help you.”

Despite the low rates of arrests and prosecutions, convicted sexual offenders are abundant on tribal lands. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, with about 25,000 people, is home to 99 Class 3 sex offenders, those deemed most likely to commit sex crimes after their release from prison. The Tohono O’odham tribe’s reservation in Arizona, where about 15,000 people live, has 184, according to the Justice Department.

By comparison, Boston, with a population of 618,000, has 252 Class 3 offenders. Minneapolis, with a population of 383,000, has 101, according to the local police.

The agencies responsible for aiding the victims of sexual assault among American Indians are often ill prepared.

The Indian Health Service, for instance, provides exams for rape victims at only 27 of the 45 hospitals it finances and, according to a federal report in 2011, did not keep adequate track of the number of sexual assault victims its facilities treat and lacked an overall policy for treating rape victims. Additionally, the health service has just 73 trained sexual assault examiners.

federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases...

Is it OK to inquire why "federal prosecutors" declined to take action? This seems like pretty serious negligence. Assuming this actually happened, do we actually need new laws, or would new prosecutors be more appropriate?

According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

Let me put it this way, Republican senators were able to agree that this legislation was needed, It was only the House Republicans who found issue with it. Joe, what exactly do you find so odious about a group of people trying to protect themselves on their own lands against people who trespass and commit violence against its citizens?

LOL. The percentage of domestic-violence victims who don't know their abuser is in the single digits. VAWA or no VAWA, there's nothing stopping tribal police from arresting and detaining people who commit crimes.

LOL. The percentage of domestic-violence victims who don't know their abuser is in the single digits. VAWA or no VAWA, there's nothing stopping tribal police from arresting and detaining people who commit crimes.

So you agree we should make it easier to allow them to arrest and prosecute them then?

"I don't like that they're able to have anchor babies, but they're real good neighbors," Witherspoon said. "When we're gone, they keep an eye on the house."

In Rowland Heights, the Pheasant Ridge apartments on Colima Road is the home of at least one maternity hotel. The company, Mother of American, displays on its website an image of an expectant woman draped in an American flag. In the parking lot, pregnant women heading to and from the nearby Puente Hills Mall are a common sight.

Zhang Huiting of Beijing is staying at Pheasant Ridge with his wife, who is due to give birth to a son in January. He rented the apartment on his own and is not using a maternity hotel's services, he said.

But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.

In South Dakota, Indians make up 10 percent of the population, but account for 40 percent of the victims of sexual assault. Alaska Natives are 15 percent of that state’s population, but constitute 61 percent of its victims of sexual assault.

The Justice Department did not prosecute 65 percent of the rape cases on Indian reservations in 2011. And though the department said it had mandated extra training for prosecutors and directed each field office to develop its own plan to help reduce violence against women, some advocates for Native American women said they no longer pressed victims to report rapes.

“I feel bad saying that,” said Sarah Deer, a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota and an authority on violent crime on reservations. “But it compounds the trauma if you are willing to stand up and testify and they can’t help you.”

Despite the low rates of arrests and prosecutions, convicted sexual offenders are abundant on tribal lands. The Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, with about 25,000 people, is home to 99 Class 3 sex offenders, those deemed most likely to commit sex crimes after their release from prison. The Tohono O’odham tribe’s reservation in Arizona, where about 15,000 people live, has 184, according to the Justice Department.

By comparison, Boston, with a population of 618,000, has 252 Class 3 offenders. Minneapolis, with a population of 383,000, has 101, according to the local police.

The agencies responsible for aiding the victims of sexual assault among American Indians are often ill prepared.

The Indian Health Service, for instance, provides exams for rape victims at only 27 of the 45 hospitals it finances and, according to a federal report in 2011, did not keep adequate track of the number of sexual assault victims its facilities treat and lacked an overall policy for treating rape victims. Additionally, the health service has just 73 trained sexual assault examiners.

The above seems to have little to do with VAWA. Rather, it seems to indicate that the crime rate within the Native American/American Indian population is substantially higher than it is among non-Native Americans (as is true in Canada). There's no evidence in the above that there's an epidemic of non-Native Americans assaulting women on tribal lands.

You'll also note that the above discusses the issue of sexual offenders who live on the reservations, which presumably means they're Native American and not non-Native Americans who commit their crimes on tribal lands and then flee.

You guys need to do better with your citations. #219 and #223 were embarrassingly subjective and/or off-topic, if not deliberately misleading.

But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.

It just makes no sense to fact check a point that's open to several interpretations. Kessler admits that Obama's comment is accurate when viewed in the context of the current tax rates remaining on the books, and since that was the GOP position he was negotiating against, it's a perfectly fair comparison.

No; the GOP position he was negotiating against had major spending cuts.

IOW, the compromise that passed will reduce the deficit by $700B as compared to the rates that most republicans wanted. Moreover, he criticizes Obama for framing the deal as a victory when it wasn't exactly what he or the Democrats wanted. Huh? That's not a statement that needs to be factchecked in any way, shape, or form, and it's absurd to suggest that Obama should have said "well, I didn't get 100% of what I wanted and therefore I failed."

No; he criticizes Obama for picking and choosing when to compare to current policy vs. current law. Obama is using the former for talking about taxes on the "rich," but then using the latter for talking about taxes on the middle class, pretending that the end of the payroll tax "holiday" has no effect on people's taxes.

(Of course, the really big lie is citing $700 billion as if it were a big number, when -- given that it's over 10 years -- it's basically pocket change, not much more than rounding error in the federal budget. That's the ballpark amount that needs to be sliced off the one year deficit, not the ten year deficit. I did like how Obama was touting the spending cuts, when virtually all spending cuts in the analysis involve lower interest payments rather than eliminating any actual spending.)

And if you mean "ethnic cleansing", it is happening again. Right now, to the Palestinians.

You can tell, by the fact that the Palestinian population of Israel and the disputed territories is dropping as they're being cleansed from the lands. No, wait, that isn't happening. The only "ethnic cleansing" that has happened in the region is that Jews were all forced to leave Gaza, and Palestinian supporters are trying to render the West Bank Judenrein also.

personally what I think should have been done was carve out a region of Germany (perhaps one bordering France or Luxembourg) and given that to European Jews- the Germans living there could have been expelled, they had it coming, and besides expelling Germans from regions in Europe in the late 40s was the acceptable thing to do...

No instead, what was done was a million refugees were dropped smack dab in the middle of a population that had nothing to do with the Holocaust...

This is wrong on several levels. First, it mistakenly treats Jews as mere puppets, rather than actors. Jews did not want to live in a "region of Germany" anymore, and they were not "dropped" into Palestine. In fact, they were kept out of Palestine. There's a view out there that treats the state of Israel as a creation of the West; that view is incorrect. Jews created the state of Israel, over the opposition of Britain, and without the support of the West. True, the West ended up recognizing Israel after it was created -- but that's it.

Second, saying that the population "had nothing to do with the Holocaust" is wrong; in fact, the Palestinian Arabs were allied with Hitler. And they had been going around killing Jews in the land long before Israel was formed. (Indeed, it was virulent Arab anti-semitism that caused Britain to close Palestine to Jews before, during, and after the war.)

In domestic news, the House GOP let the Violence Against Women Act expire. But women should definitely vote Republican and there is no War On Women. (The updated VAWA also had more protection for transgendered and male victims of domestic violence, which is sorely needed.)

You can tell, by the fact that the Palestinian population of Israel and the disputed territories is dropping as they're being cleansed from the lands. No, wait, that isn't happening. The only "ethnic cleansing" that has happened in the region is that Jews were all forced to leave Gaza, and Palestinian supporters are trying to render the West Bank Judenrein also.

Haha. I know you don't believe this, David. Guess what? Nobody takes you seriously anymore! Why should they with crap like that? Yes the Palestinians certainly ethnically cleansed the Israelis from Gaza! Can't you see you are overplaying your hand? Please keep going you are making us all laugh at you. It's a shame you can't hear it.

Ethnic cleansing does not have to mean the population dwindles, only that a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED from the desired territory. That is exactly what is happening. All over the west bank.

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: "ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups."

The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.

What other lesson are you supposed to take away other than some people in congress think its okay for rape to occur at the levels that its occurring?

This is an issue where actually, yes, more laws and legislation would help the god damn problem.

I would note that allowing tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians on reservations -- even if it were a real issue -- presents serious problems. Tribal courts are not bound by the protections of the constitution, and non-Indians are banned from serving on juries.

Haha. I know you don't believe this, David. Guess what? Nobody takes you seriously anymore! Why should they with crap like that? Yes the Palestinians certainly ethnically cleansed the Israelis from Gaza! Can't you see you are overplaying your hand? Please keep going you are making us all laugh at you. It's a shame you can't hear it.

Thank you for your input. I will file it with my son's used diapers in the appropriate receptacle.

Ethnic cleansing does not have to mean the population dwindles, only that a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED from the desired territory. That is exactly what is happening. All over the west bank.

Uh, yes, ethnic cleansing does have to mean the population dwindles. See, that's what happens when a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED. They're not there anymore. Which -- this is something complicated, called math -- means the population lessens. But in fact this is not happening in the West Bank.

On the other hand (a) this did happen in Gaza, and (b) is exactly what people want to have happen to Jews in the West Bank -- that they all be removed. Of course, the Palestinians did not physically cleanse the Israelis from Gaza -- but it happened at their behest. Just as they are demanding with respect to the West Bank, based on the utterly indefensible idea that it is illegal for Jews to live there.

Apologies for the broken link. http://www.icctc.org/Tribal Courts-final.pdf is the aforementioned cliff's notes version of the history of tribal courts and how they differ from federal/state court. Can't seem to figure out how to get the hyperlink to work with the space in it.

The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.

You'll note the lack of comparison to non-Indian contexts in the random factoids being presented. What percent of alleged rapes are reported and prosecuted on non-tribal land? And there were real concerns with simply allowing tribal courts to prosecute non-tribal members, as I note in 237. It is illegal everywhere in the U.S. to select a jury based on race -- except on tribal land, where all non-Indians are excluded.

Uh, yes, ethnic cleansing does have to mean the population dwindles. See, that's what happens when a certain ETHNICITY is CLEANSED. They're not there anymore. Which -- this is something complicated, called math -- means the population lessens. But in fact this is not happening in the West Bank.

In fact it is happening. In the West Bank oOn all the best land, with access to all the best water sources, etc. In Jerusalem every day.

And playing up Israel's politically incisive maneuver to remove the settlers from Gaza as if it was the result of the immense "will" of the Palestinians is just sad. Yes, many Palestinians want Jews off the land. But whatever they want had and is having essentially zero effect on the decision to remove the Gazan settlers (a decision which the Gazan settlers clearly did not want Israel to make), and zero effect on reducing the settler movement in any shape or form. I believe the cartoon that started this was about E-1, or have you already forgotten?

You are arguing an intellectual loser of a position. What is indefensible is not Israel's borders, but the tired justifications Israel has been using now for the last decades. We can all see through it now, David. It's only a matter of time.

The current situation allows a lot of rapes on tribal lands against women to be severally under-reported and under prosecuted. There was legislation that would have made it easier to combat this, and was not implemented.

As I pointed out above, the bigger problem seems to be Native American men assaulting Native American women. Tribal police don't need VAWA to arrest and prosecute those offenders.

This seems like another Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. Nobody on the left cares when blacks assault blacks or whites assault whites, etc., but as soon as there's a cross-racial or cross-ethnic component, it becomes a competition to see who can exhibit the most self-righteousness.

What other lesson are you supposed to take away other than some people in congress think its okay for rape to occur at the levels that its occurring?

Actually, there are quite a few other lessons one could take away from this other than your silly conclusion.

As a Muslim of Arab descent, I am going to say some things that I feel are important and I know not everyone will buy. First, some semantics. Arabs are Semites, so the correct term is probably Anti-Jewish. I don't think there is inherent anti-Jew sentiment within Muslims. They, along with Christians, are People of the Scripture and any Muslim who knows anything about his faith that Islam has great respect for those religions. There is a reason why Muslims, Christians, and Jews were able to live in relative harmony in Muslims lands when that wasn't possible in Europe. Is there a raise in anti-Jewish sentiment across the Muslim world now? Absolutely but I think that's a natural response to any conflict over land/resources. I am sure there was anti-German sentiment in much of Europe over the first half of the 20th century. If and when there can be a fair solution to the conflict, this sentiment will likely decrease as anti-German sentiment has decreased.

(Indeed, it was virulent Arab anti-semitism that caused Britain to close Palestine to Jews before, during, and after the war.)

Again, the Arab revolt of the 1930s in Palestine was the result of the Arab feeling that the British Mandate was assisting Jews to help them establish what would become Israel. See the Balfour promise. It's not "virulent anti-Semitism." It's conflict over resources.

But the Zhangs' hopes echo those of many hotel clients: They want their child to have access to an American education, which is considered to encourage creativity and be less of a pressure cooker than China's rigorous, exam-based system.
This is exactly the reason my parents moved here 35 years ago.

Well, the great irony is that the US system want to be more like the East Asian once (which are all more or less the same) and vice versa. Taiwan has tried quite hard over the last 15 years or so to try and get more "American" in their education, though now most people seem to regret that decision. (though it's not necessarily the American education part, its that they destroyed a lot of the positive of our old system without actually getting to most of the positives of the American system.)

There are a good deal of kids born in the US though, (but I'm not one.) even the first daughters of the sitting presidents are like that, though he was legitimately studying in Harvard at that time.. which seem to be the actual most common cause of most ABT, I think I heard of those sort of anchor baby agent before but never thought they were all that common here . (though maybe that's because it's more of a secret between rich people)

In realistic term though, for a 30 something guy today, he probably would have had a much much greater career opportunity on average if he was in China during his early 20s. (though that doesn't neccesarily mean he couldn't have the education in the states. )

I strongly suspect that the majority of religious people don't bother investing energy in hating members of other religions, and that in this respect, Muslims are not much different from any other religious group. There are extremists in pretty much every religion that are anti-every-other-religion.

This seems like another Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. Nobody on the left cares when blacks assault blacks or whites assault whites, etc., but as soon as there's a cross-racial or cross-ethnic component, it becomes a competition to see who can exhibit the most self-righteousness.

Yes, if only there had been more outcry during all these recent shootings about white people shooting white people. It's like it never even happened.

And if you comb the internet in America for the dark lefty wingnut corners, you may see news of a rape and murder in India. No one gives a crap about that either. Or Steubenville.